The "he got a touch on the ball" argument

[Kladze]

So if a defender pulls a player's shirt outside the box, and the attacker goes down after the contact (ie foul) began inside the box, a penalty should be awarded?

If a foul is commited, it's where the first touch, which initiated the foul, occured.

From FIFA's Laws of the Game Q&A 2006:

Q: A defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area but finishes inside the penalty area. What action should the referee take?

A: He would award a penalty kick.

I am assuming that this is still the rule today.

Rafael on Bellamy in the CC semi final started outside the box and ended inside.
Having said that, the daft sod let go and then made a second grab.

I stand corrected.

I am honestly amazed. I never thought that was the way the rule worked, and have never seen it interpreted that way, either by a referee (with the exception of what I thought were 'dodgy decisions'), or by a commentator.

Richards last year against whoever was a prime example. He grabbed the shirt of the opponent a good 2 yards outside the penalty box.

[Kladze]

Rafael on Bellamy in the CC semi final started outside the box but ended inside.
Having said that, the daft sod let go then made a second grab.

[Blue in North London]

Williamson's attempted tackle was a foul. If he had tackled Tevez with his left foot he may got away with it. Because he tackled with his right, from his position, he was never going to get the ball first. Poor technique. I was always told as a kid that if you are going to slide tackle, you do it with your 'outside' leg.

[TheGOAT]

The truth is that if this was any other club it would be classed as a clear penalty. Tevez was in control of the ball with a clear goal scoring opportunity when even if Williamson got the ball, he took out the player who would've been able to run onto the ball and carry on with that goal scoring opportunity; the fact that it started outside the box makes no consequence as the challenge actually brought Tevez down in the box so therefore a penalty.

So if a defender pulls a player's shirt outside the box, and the attacker goes down after the contact (ie foul) began inside the box, a penalty should be awarded?

If a foul is commited, it's where the first touch, which initiated the foul, occured.

Harsh decision for Newcastle in my opinion. Penalty or not, 5 years ago that call wouldn't have gone our way, I'm pretty certain of that.

No it's not you are indeed wrong! The referee is allowed to play to the attackers advantage. If a player is fouled outside the box and again inside the box the advantage for the attacker is to be awarded the foul inside and therefore a penalty should be awarded.

[ayrshireblue]

Speaking to someone who was a Premier League ref in Scotland for years then a supervisor, his view is that you always punish the most serious offence. Therefore, a foul occuring both inside and outside the area should result in a penalty. Still don't know how Williamson stayed on the park as a clear goalscoring opportunity was denied.

[ronk]

I've never really understood why this isn't something that's seen as automatic and obvious. If an offence happens partly in the box and partly out of it, it's fully a penalty. Why should a ref give the person who committed the foul the benefit of the doubt, or a favourable interpretation?

Hughton stood there bitterly complaining about the decisions and barely watched the first replay, he simply didn't care. It was inconclusive from that angle, but why let that stop you. If you watch the post match interview again you see that he turns his back to the screen well before the definitive replay gets shown. From where the ref was positioned, it was easy to see that it was a foul. Clear and no need to consult with his linesman. We should be up in arms that Williamson was still on the pitch, but we're not like that, we have more class.

[Goataldo]

Having seen the replays, I don't think it was a pen. At the match, it looked nailed on.

Either way, it was given, and the ref has no excuse to not send him off. Tev's penultimate step before being clattered was toward goal, but the one after one, he was obviously bearing down on the keeper, and the centre half did very well to say 'he was going wide' straightaway to the ref.

I also think that Newcastle shold have had a penalty. Glad they didn't, but it was strange as I'm not used to seeing us getting away with that sort of thing. Money changes everything.......?

[superkev8705]

Im just glad we got a penalty. Im sure we went a season not long ago where we didnt get one at all.

[Wooders]

wasn't a penalty but "thats football" as they say

[Mark (Blue Army)]

Wasn't a pen, but like others have said we got the points so i don't really care.

[jelly&icecreamblue]

The fact that Tevez had at least half a yard and the fact that Williamson was always gonna tackle from behind/side was always gonna be odds on pen and lucky not to be sent off.Not even human error or a clanger just a classic case like kiddo says "some you get some you dont" stop whinging Hughton if it was such a bad day do you not think joey would be mouthing it?

[TheGOAT]

Why are some people saying it wasn't a pen?

It was a tackle from behind. He went through the player. Whether gets to the ball is irrelevant!
It really annoys me the way some people have a different set of rules for the penalty area!!

[hyper]

Im just glad we got a penalty. Im sure we went a season not long ago where we didnt get one at all.

Am I right in thinking that was the season where we finally DID get a penalty against Boro in the last game of the season - and Fowler promptly missed it meaning we lost out on a place in the UEFA.

[BlueinBosnia]

I've never really understood why this isn't something that's seen as automatic and obvious. If an offence happens partly in the box and partly out of it, it's fully a penalty. Why should a ref give the person who committed the foul the benefit of the doubt, or a favourable interpretation?

I'd have thought the opposite. The starting point of a foul is when it occurs, not the end point. When the referee blows, it is in reference to the initiation of the foul, not the end. For example, if 2 players start scrapping, he doesn't wait until its finished to blow and send them off. Likewise, a free kick is given where a tackle is made (ie the start of a foul), not where the player lands (the end of the foul), and throw-ins are taken where a ball initially goes out of play, not where it lands.

The ideal rule would be for referees to award a free kick/penalty wherever the initial contact is made, in my opinion. It just makes sense to me. However, going on the current rules, it was a penalty.

[ronk]

I've never really understood why this isn't something that's seen as automatic and obvious. If an offence happens partly in the box and partly out of it, it's fully a penalty. Why should a ref give the person who committed the foul the benefit of the doubt, or a favourable interpretation?

I'd have thought the opposite. The starting point of a foul is when it occurs, not the end point. When the referee blows, it is in reference to the initiation of the foul, not the end. For example, if 2 players start scrapping, he doesn't wait until its finished to blow and send them off. Likewise, a free kick is given where a tackle is made (ie the start of a foul), not where the player lands (the end of the foul), and throw-ins are taken where a ball initially goes out of play, not where it lands.

The ideal rule would be for referees to award a free kick/penalty wherever the initial contact is made, in my opinion. It just makes sense to me. However, going on the current rules, it was a penalty.

None of those scenarios would be subject to the law of advantage in the same way.

What about this scenario? Through ball is played and 2 attacking players have their shirts pulled (offence overlaps) so they cannot play the ball. One is inside the box, one is outside, ref sees both offences (or is informed by linesman). Is it a penalty or a free kick?